Gay rights and real people

Homosexuality is basically a morals issue. I don't want to spoil anyone's party, but society has always maintained the right to regulate and define morality.

First the term "gay," which meant "merry" or "carefree," was hijacked. Then "partner" was hijacked. Once you gain acceptance for aberrant social behavior by cloaking it in terms that mean something totally different, what is the next step?

Even without same-sex marriage, gays already enjoy many of the same rights as married couples. Many believe this trend is morally wrong no matter how you rationalize it. Who says there is no agenda?

Richard Deight

Orange

Re "State leads the nation in gay rights," Oct. 9

Are we now to believe that there is no need for same-sex marriage equality? To suggest that targeted discrimination against gay people can be written into the state Constitution with little repercussion for hard-fought rights and protections is both irresponsible and insulting.

Being treated as an equal citizen carries more than just "symbolic weight" for my family and me, and so many others like us. Imagine what it feels like to have 36 million strangers get to decide if you are allowed to marry the person you love. Imagine trying to answer your child's question about why his parents are not really married, even though they want to be.

This is not about religious rights versus gay rights -- it's about real people who are tired of being told that "separate but equal" can somehow work for them.